Jonathan W Bogart1, Nicholas J Kramer1, Aneta Turlik2, Rachel M Bleich1, Daniel S Catlin3, Frank C Schroeder4, Satish K Nair3,5, R Thomas Williamson6, K N Houk2, Albert A Bowers1,7. 1. Division of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States. 2. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States. 3. Department of Biochemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, United States. 4. Boyce Thompson Institute and Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Ithaca, New York 14853, United States. 5. Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, United States. 6. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, United States. 7. Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.
Abstract
Thiopeptides are a broad class of macrocyclic, heavily modified peptide natural products that are unified by the presence of a substituted, nitrogen-containing heterocycle core. Early work indicated that this core might be fashioned from two dehydroalanines by an enzyme-catalyzed aza-[4 + 2] cycloaddition to give a cyclic-hemiaminal intermediate. This common intermediate could then follow a reductive path toward a dehydropiperidine, as in the thiopeptide thiostrepton, or an aromatization path to yield the pyridine groups observed in many other thiopeptides. Although several of the enzymes proposed to perform this cycloaddition have been reconstituted, only pyridine products have been isolated and any hemiaminal intermediates have yet to be observed. Here, we identify the conditions and substrates that decouple the cycloaddition from subsequent steps and allow interception and characterization of this long hypothesized intermediate. Transition state modeling indicates that the key amide-iminol tautomerization is the major hurdle in an otherwise energetically favorable cycloaddition. An anionic model suggests that deprotonation and polarization of this amide bond by TbtD removes this barrier and provides a sufficient driving force for facile (stepwise) cycloaddition. This work provides evidence for a mechanistic link between disparate cyclases in thiopeptide biosynthesis.
Thiopeptides are a broad class of macrocyclic, heavily modified peptide natural products that are unified by the presence of a substituted, n class="Chemical">nitrogen-containing heterocycle core. Early work indicated that this core might be fashioned from two dehydroalanines by an enzyme-catalyzed aza-[4 + 2] cycloaddition to give a cyclic-hemiaminal intermediate. This common intermediate could then follow a reductive path toward a dehydropiperidine, as in the thiopeptidethiostrepton, or an aromatization path to yield the pyridine groups observed in many other thiopeptides. Although several of the enzymes proposed to perform this cycloaddition have been reconstituted, only pyridine products have been isolated and any hemiaminal intermediates have yet to be observed. Here, we identify the conditions and substrates that decouple the cycloaddition from subsequent steps and allow interception and characterization of this long hypothesized intermediate. Transition state modeling indicates that the key amide-iminol tautomerization is the major hurdle in an otherwise energetically favorable cycloaddition. An anionic model suggests that deprotonation and polarization of this amide bond by TbtD removes this barrier and provides a sufficient driving force for facile (stepwise) cycloaddition. This work provides evidence for a mechanistic link between disparate cyclases in thiopeptide biosynthesis.
Authors: Matthew J LaMarche; Jennifer A Leeds; JoAnne Dzink-Fox; Karl Gunderson; Philipp Krastel; Klaus Memmert; Michael A Patane; Elin M Rann; Esther Schmitt; Stacey Tiamfook; Bing Wang Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Matthew J LaMarche; Jennifer A Leeds; Kerri Amaral; Jason T Brewer; Simon M Bushell; Janetta M Dewhurst; JoAnne Dzink-Fox; Eric Gangl; Julie Goldovitz; Akash Jain; Steve Mullin; Georg Neckermann; Colin Osborne; Deborah Palestrant; Michael A Patane; Elin M Rann; Meena Sachdeva; Jian Shao; Stacey Tiamfook; Lewis Whitehead; Donghui Yu Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: K Tori; K Tokura; Y Yoshimura; Y Terui; K Okabe; H Otsuka; K Matsushita; F Inagaki; T Miyazawa Journal: J Antibiot (Tokyo) Date: 1981-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Dillon P Cogan; Graham A Hudson; Zhengan Zhang; Taras V Pogorelov; Wilfred A van der Donk; Douglas A Mitchell; Satish K Nair Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Manuel Montalbán-López; Thomas A Scott; Sangeetha Ramesh; Imran R Rahman; Auke J van Heel; Jakob H Viel; Vahe Bandarian; Elke Dittmann; Olga Genilloud; Yuki Goto; María José Grande Burgos; Colin Hill; Seokhee Kim; Jesko Koehnke; John A Latham; A James Link; Beatriz Martínez; Satish K Nair; Yvain Nicolet; Sylvie Rebuffat; Hans-Georg Sahl; Dipti Sareen; Eric W Schmidt; Lutz Schmitt; Konstantin Severinov; Roderich D Süssmuth; Andrew W Truman; Huan Wang; Jing-Ke Weng; Gilles P van Wezel; Qi Zhang; Jin Zhong; Jörn Piel; Douglas A Mitchell; Oscar P Kuipers; Wilfred A van der Donk Journal: Nat Prod Rep Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 15.111